Pharmaceuticals covering up Cancer Cure

C

Chapdog

Abreast of the situations
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971
It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their "immortality". The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ij9PwnjSZg"]YouTube - Sodium Dichloroacetate (NaDCA or DCA) - Cure for Cancer[/ame]
 
I don't know for sure if this is true, but I have always figured that if they had a cure, they would hide it. Think about what kind of business cancer is. Not only the pharms, but hospitals, like Memorial Sloan Kettering.
 
Darla said:
I don't know for sure if this is true, but I have always figured that if they had a cure, they would hide it. Think about what kind of business cancer is. Not only the pharms, but hospitals, like Memorial Sloan Kettering.
Click to expand...

No way. It would be so huge, in terms of prestige as well as economically, for a researcher, a group, a school, hospital, or a company, to develop a cure for cancer that they'd be right out front there. I can ask a couple of people about this drug, but let's all slow down here and remember laetrile, interferon, etc.
 
Thorn said:
No way. It would be so huge, in terms of prestige as well as economically, for a researcher, a group, a school, hospital, or a company, to develop a cure for cancer that they'd be right out front there. I can ask a couple of people about this drug, but let's all slow down here and remember laetrile, interferon, etc.
Click to expand...

Ok, if you find out anything, let us know Thorn. I'd be very interested.
 
Thorn said:
No way. It would be so huge, in terms of prestige as well as economically, for a researcher, a group, a school, hospital, or a company, to develop a cure for cancer that they'd be right out front there. I can ask a couple of people about this drug, but let's all slow down here and remember laetrile, interferon, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks let us know. I read some message board where people were claiming it cured them after 3 months.
 
Chapdog said:
Thanks let us know. I read some message board where people were claiming it cured them after 3 months.
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about laetrile. It never passed FDA scrutiny, though and people were going to Mexico for treatment. Standards are, shall we say, a tad more lax there. It was basically a scam.

Interferon was another great hopeful. It's a part of your natural immune system, but what people forget when they jump on these bandwagons is that each of these things usually works on one aspect of the problem, or works within the framework of a network, and requires all the other elements to be in balance. Interferon as the great cure-all didn't go anywhere either.

Most treatments for cancer are not effective with all cancers anyway, as malignancies are far more varied in nature than we tend to realize. One extremely hopeful treatment for tumors is the dreaded thalidomide. This was prescribed during the fifties, I think, to pregnant women for morning sickness. In that it was effective, but the tragedy of its principal side effect was that it also acts to inhibit the growth of blood vessels and during the period when most women experience morning sickness is when the fetus is at a critical stage of development, including its blood vessels, limbs, etc., etc. Many children of these mothers were born without limbs, or with "flippers" for limbs, and with other problems. Of course the drug was withdrawn, but two benefits gradually emerges. First, this was the first recognition that drugs could affect fetal development, sparking research on all drugs for their influence on unborn children. Today you see warnings on pretty much everything, including OTC cold medications, that they're not to be taken during pregnancy. The second benefit was that, after all those years "on the shelf", the drug was examined to determine whether its mechanism of action, i.e. the inhibition of blood vessel proliferation, could have an effect on malignant tumor growth. The thinking was that such tumors are heavily vascularized, and if they could be starved by preventing nourishment by the blood then the cancer of that type could be halted by the treatment.

I'll check out this drug and see what I can find.
 
I did a NLM search and found 89 recent references on the first try.

This finding is very new. The reason it hasn't been offered on a broad scale in clinical treatment to date is that, from what I can determine looking at the studies, there is a potential that the unintended effects of treatment may be as lethal to the patient as the treatment is to the cancer.

DCA affects a process that is natural in most cells; so far it seems to be selective for cancer cells, but not enough work has been done yet to determine this. Another study found that DCA made certain cancer cells more sensitive to radiation treatment. Unfortunately, most of these studies are done with tissues in isolation so it takes a while to determine the overall effects on the entire organism.

With DCA, the drug has been given for metabolic disorders, so certain doses may be considered relatively safe, at least for people with such disorders. Whether or not this will be sufficient against cancer cells is another matter, and higher doses may present problems of their own. The drug is currently in clinical trials to assess this risk.

Again, should this be shown to be an effective treatment against some forms of cancer, it will not be suppressed. The research is too widespread and too many people are excited and hopeful about its prospects. At the same time, we don't want another situation where the cure is worse than the disease.
 
Thorn said:
I did a NLM search and found 89 recent references on the first try.

This finding is very new. The reason it hasn't been offered on a broad scale in clinical treatment to date is that, from what I can determine looking at the studies, there is a potential that the unintended effects of treatment may be as lethal to the patient as the treatment is to the cancer.

DCA affects a process that is natural in most cells; so far it seems to be selective for cancer cells, but not enough work has been done yet to determine this. Another study found that DCA made certain cancer cells more sensitive to radiation treatment. Unfortunately, most of these studies are done with tissues in isolation so it takes a while to determine the overall effects on the entire organism.

With DCA, the drug has been given for metabolic disorders, so certain doses may be considered relatively safe, at least for people with such disorders. Whether or not this will be sufficient against cancer cells is another matter, and higher doses may present problems of their own. The drug is currently in clinical trials to assess this risk.

Again, should this be shown to be an effective treatment against some forms of cancer, it will not be suppressed. The research is too widespread and too many people are excited and hopeful about its prospects. At the same time, we don't want another situation where the cure is worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

http://www.cellpointweb.com/

If you have the time and don't mind, take a look at the new imaging agent cellpoint is working on. What is your take on the potential?

For full disclosure, it is a firm located about a mile from my office and I hear updates from the management all the time. Just looking for an outside unbiased source. Again, only if you have the time and desire to take a look at it.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.cellpointweb.com/

If you have the time and don't mind, take a look at the new imaging agent cellpoint is working on. What is your take on the potential?

For full disclosure, it is a firm located about a mile from my office and I hear updates from the management all the time. Just looking for an outside unbiased source. Again, only if you have the time and desire to take a look at it.
Click to expand...

Wondering about buying stock? Good idea, let's get Thorn's brain working for us. It's obviously huge, why put it to waste posting to you idiots? Let's get Thorn researching possible stocks for us to buy.
 
Darla said:
Wondering about buying stock? Good idea, let's get Thorn's brain working for us. It's obviously huge, why put it to waste posting to you idiots? Let's get Thorn researching possible stocks for us to buy.
Click to expand...

LOL uhhuh, i was thinking She must be a Dr or something.
 
Chapdog said:
LOL uhhuh, i was thinking She must be a Dr or something.
Click to expand...

She's way smarter than most of us, I don't know exactly what she is. I think some kind of scientist. But we should definitely be making money off of this - I like the way SF is thinking here.
 
Sometimes i wish I studied something that gives back to society. I basically went the easy money rout with a major would give me highest paying and easiest to find jobs.

Maybe at half life I will do something new.
 
Darla said:
Wondering about buying stock? Good idea, let's get Thorn's brain working for us. It's obviously huge, why put it to waste posting to you idiots? Let's get Thorn researching possible stocks for us to buy.
Click to expand...

It is not a publically traded stock. But a friend of mine just had surgery to remove a false positive. This could potentially eliminate the majority of false positives. It could also potentially reduce the costs of cancer detection and faster response times to see whether cancer treatments are working. Which could also save time, money and pain for the patient.

Also note, I did not say... "darla, please research this and do it now"... I said, "If you have the time and don't mind, take a look at the new imaging agent cellpoint is working on. What is your take on the potential?"

Because...

1) It is of interest to me

2) I thought it might be of interest to her

So...

1) bite me

2) Bugger off
 
Darla said:
She's way smarter than most of us, I don't know exactly what she is. I think some kind of scientist. But we should definitely be making money off of this - I like the way SF is thinking here.
Click to expand...

I believe she is a researcher in genetics/biochemistry/molecular biology or something along those lines.
 
Chapdog said:
Sometimes i wish I studied something that gives back to society. I basically went the easy money rout with a major would give me highest paying and easiest to find jobs.

Maybe at half life I will do something new.
Click to expand...

Or maybe we will all get to try something new if layoffs continue. :)
 
Superfreak said:
Or maybe we will all get to try something new if layoffs continue. :)
Click to expand...

Nah maybe in about 10 years. Im biding time right now to pay off my mortgage and enjoy life. After my son is not interested in me anymore I will buy into a business or something.
 
Thorn said:
I did a NLM search and found 89 recent references on the first try.

This finding is very new. The reason it hasn't been offered on a broad scale in clinical treatment to date is that, from what I can determine looking at the studies, there is a potential that the unintended effects of treatment may be as lethal to the patient as the treatment is to the cancer.

DCA affects a process that is natural in most cells; so far it seems to be selective for cancer cells, but not enough work has been done yet to determine this. Another study found that DCA made certain cancer cells more sensitive to radiation treatment. Unfortunately, most of these studies are done with tissues in isolation so it takes a while to determine the overall effects on the entire organism.

With DCA, the drug has been given for metabolic disorders, so certain doses may be considered relatively safe, at least for people with such disorders. Whether or not this will be sufficient against cancer cells is another matter, and higher doses may present problems of their own. The drug is currently in clinical trials to assess this risk.

Again, should this be shown to be an effective treatment against some forms of cancer, it will not be suppressed. The research is too widespread and too many people are excited and hopeful about its prospects. At the same time, we don't want another situation where the cure is worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

I think it's become a rather widespread belief that pharmaceuticals avoid looking for cures as much as they can because it's not as profitable as a treatment. Is there any reason that isn't true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top